Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Day one purchase for me, no preorders though.
I thought ME1 has the best story, ME2 has the best writing, and ME3 had the best gameplay but the worst story and writing.
ME2 included a change in writers. Karpyshyn left and Walter's took over late in development. I think they were struggling with where to take the story either way. Drew was building an ending around Dark Energy and Mac decided to go in another direction. No way of knowing if Drew's ideas would have ended any better; I'm guessing they were incomplete or not panning out, resulting in the switch by Mac. Either way, it was obvious they didn't have a strong plan for how to wrap up all the mystery they had created. Both ME2 & ME3's endings were weak, but ME3's felt so alien and tacked on in relation to the rest of the story that it stood out considerably more.
Andromeda has the benefit of being able to start fresh on a clean page, and the same staff of writers from beginning to end. They are not talking about a "trilogy" or anything like that yet, but they would be fools not to have a rough outline for a full arch at this point. This game is designed to be standalone, like ME1 was, but knowing EA, they are banking on success and planning for the future.
Speaking of Karpyshyn, everyone here who is a fan of Mass Effect needs to go out and read his book trilogy if you haven't already. If there ever is a Mass Effect theatrical movie it needs to be based on one of his books. Revelation would be an excellent start to a movie franchise.ME2 included a change in writers. Karpyshyn left and Walter's took over late in development. I think they were struggling with where to take the story either way. Drew was building an ending around Dark Energy and Mac decided to go in another direction. No way of knowing if Drew's ideas would have ended any better; I'm guessing they were incomplete or not panning out, resulting in the switch by Mac. Either way, it was obvious they didn't have a strong plan for how to wrap up all the mystery they had created. Both ME2 & ME3's endings were weak, but ME3's felt so alien and tacked on in relation to the rest of the story that it stood out considerably more.
Andromeda has the benefit of being able to start fresh on a clean page, and the same staff of writers from beginning to end. They are not talking about a "trilogy" or anything like that yet, but they would be fools not to have a rough outline for a full arch at this point. This game is designed to be standalone, like ME1 was, but knowing EA, they are banking on success and planning for the future.
I'd rather have a clichéd ending that worked over the incongruent and retarded mess we ended up with.
Fair enough, and I'm all for clichéd endings when they're well executed (ME1, for example). But the pace-breaking gaudiness in the ME2 ending was turned up so far past 11 it was gut wrenching. I just can't imagine any well-versed, literary person sitting in a storyboard session thinking: "Let's have the protag shoot a giant cyborg skeleton in the eye repeatedly to end the game - this really ties the plot together".
IMHO, I would have Empire Strikes the crap out of the ME2 ending with some sort of loss and hope-outlook for the next game. I think you catch hallmarks that this is what they were actually leading up to earlier in the game, but at some point -- and this is just a guess -- a suit got a hold of the story and made the change because it was the more sellable ending.
All I'm saying is ME3's ending was at least interesting and it seemed like they were actually. It wasn't caviar, but I'd still give the writers a B+ for effort.
At least they took a risk in the ME3 ending, albeit the denouement was clumsy and a bit off key. It at least somewhat matched the grandeur they had been working towards in the story with clin d'oeils to Tarkovsky's Solaris, 2001 and the Matrix. You can at least respect that when compared to the clichéd cringe-fest that was the ending of ME2. I have a feeling Walter in ME2 was either trying to build a blockbuster tick on his resume or Bioware execs were meddling.
Having recently replayed all three, including DLC, I can say this- there is a DLC called Leviathan that explains why the endings which can eventually be chosen from were essentially inevitable.
Retroactive, I know, but overall the series as it currently stands more or less 'fits'.
I agree with you to a degree about Mass Effect 2's ending. It wasn't so bad as to prevent me from enjoying the game or replaying the game. I still looked forward to finishing the series after playing the game. After Mass Effect 3's ending, I wished I hadn't ever heard of the series much less wasted so many hours on it. Some BioWare apologists on various forums tried to defend BioWare stating that the journey is more important than the ending. I strongly disagreed as the original ending was so bad as to retroactively ruin the entire experience of playing the series. I can't give the writers a B+ for effort or anything like that because the ending was a retarded Deus Ex Machina type ending which showed no thought and even less writing skill. The ending was totally incongruent with what came before it and didn't fit the tone of the series. It's like the bad foot cheese or gross import beers that can only be appreciated by some Fedora wearing, Apple worshipping, Starbucks slurping hipster douche who considers anything expressing futility and nihilism to be the only forms of art worth appreciation. Those are people that will tell you that you are an idiot if you didn't like it or that you are somehow stupid for not having an appreciation for it.
I get that not all stories need or even should have a happy ending. That said, I don't think anyone expected Shepard to live through the trilogy. I would have been fine with Shepard living or dying. I think all most fans really wanted was for the Galaxy to be left better off for all the character did and achieved. The original endings didn't do that. They left the galaxy set back centuries technologically, soldiers isolated from their homes only to die on worlds that can't support them. It left the Normandy destroyed and its crew marooned in a "fuck you very much" kind of ending. The universe we spent so much time exploring and playing in is basically destroyed leaving you crushed. So not only does Shepard get fucked over but so did all the NPC characters you spend so many hours with and came to love throughout the series. It didn't need to be a happy ending but it didn't need to be a total shit show that made you want to throw up. Endings like that do not show originality or effort. Endings that either leave you with no payoff or tell you nothing are a cop out by people who can't write their way out of a greasy fast food bag running through a car wash.
Despite their contributions to the series, Mac Walters and Casey Hudson get a big fat fucking F- from me. Different doesn't mean desirable. Different doesn't equal good. Now, after having ranted about that I do have to say the revised versions provide just enough information to change the tone of the ending substantially. I still feel as though BioWare polished a turd and I still don't like what we got. However, it's "good enough" that I've been able to go back and replay the game after those changes were implemented.
...Deus Ex Machina type ending which showed no thought and even less writing skill.
I don't think you can count it as one, as from the get go the plot of the 3rd game largely revolved around what was going to occur in the end.
the biggest issue I had with ME3 was that your choices throughout the previous games had little to no impact...they kept hyping up how all your choices would have major consequences and I was excited to see the results of my actions...but in the end nothing really mattered all that much...
If I remember correctly they dumped the dark energy story because it was leaked prematurely. I think when they finished ME2 they were still committed to it. Tali's recruitment mission even hints at it, why would they include that if it wasn't the planned story? I think ME2's ending is just fine. And I still think that the Dark Energy story would've turned out much better, than some space magic wielding starchild that hid in the very centre and biggest hub of the known galactic civilizations for ages. That and the keepers are the worst plot holes in the series. As far as Drew Karpyshin stating after the fact the other story wasn't fleshed out is more of a result of some contract that prevented him from bashing his former employeer. I wouldn't find it beyond reason if he left during ME2, because they disagreed on how the story should pan out.ME2 included a change in writers. Karpyshyn left and Walter's took over late in development. I think they were struggling with where to take the story either way. Drew was building an ending around Dark Energy and Mac decided to go in another direction. No way of knowing if Drew's ideas would have ended any better; I'm guessing they were incomplete or not panning out, resulting in the switch by Mac. Either way, it was obvious they didn't have a strong plan for how to wrap up all the mystery they had created. Both ME2 & ME3's endings were weak, but ME3's felt so alien and tacked on in relation to the rest of the story that it stood out considerably more.
Except in ME2 all your choices within ME2 mattered in the end. As opposed to ME3 where nothing really mattered, not even what you did 10 seconds from the end. If you had enough war assets you could choose any ending, regardless of what you did who you saved before. If the choices in ME1 would have really had an impact on 2, then they'd probably had to make a separate storyline for each choice. Those were unrealistic expectations. They still did more than any sequels of other franchises I can think of.Agreed, but we saw this in ME2 and I expected the same for ME3. Anyone who played the first two games should have seen that coming. Nothing (of importance) mattered from ME1 to ME2, save for which characters you decided to save. Which itself had almost zero impact on ME2. Just a few minor lines of dialogue really. Another reason why I think the 2nd game was easily the most over rated of the series. 3 had some issues, but some of the main story missions were excellent. ME2 had some nice flash and scenery, but few of the time spent built up worthwhile and epic moments like ME3's Tuchanka or Rannoch missions.
True- I played the heck out of the multiplayer to make sure I got the 'good' ending, and then went back about a year later after all the patches and was able to max out the story numbers without any MP at all.
Except in ME2 all your choices within ME2 mattered in the end. As opposed to ME3 where nothing really mattered, not even what you did 10 seconds from the end. If you had enough war assets you could choose any ending, regardless of what you did who you saved before. If the choices in ME1 would have really had an impact on 2, then they'd probably had to make a separate storyline for each choice. Those were unrealistic expectations. They still did more than any sequels of other franchises I can think of.
If you played before the DLCs came out, you did need multiplayer to get the best possible ending. But I'll reluctantly admit that I even liked it, so I ended up playing much more than what was needed, and even went back to play it later.All the DLC content counted for quite a bit in your overall galactic readiness rating. You never did need the MP component to get the "good" ending but you did have to be pretty close to a completionist to do it without multiplayer.
I'd say that the game was about the characters first and the main mission was just the backdrop. So it's only fitting that your choices affect them. And yes the choices for roles at the end were obvious to anyone who paid attention to the story. But I'd think we'd both be shocked to see how many people got it wrong still. I take it as a nod from the game acknowledging our investment in the characters.The choices that mattered in ME2 were if your crew members died or not in the last 10 minutes. And those were determined by two things:
1) Playing all the side missions or not. Better, but similar to ME3's "play some of this" method.
2) Who you choose for what role in the final mission. And the choices were fairly obvious which would be better or not.
And in the end, it really didn't matter. The ending of the game remains the same, and the beginning of the 3rd game likewise remains the same.
I would have liked some bigger influences personally even though it is hard to implement. ME2 felt like a slap in the face in that regard, but I was half expecting it. ME3 just continued what was already established. With the current title this situation will be avoided entirely as this sounds like a standalone game, and other possible sequels will not carry over. Shame, because I would have liked to see them improve this area rather than drop it.
If you played before the DLCs came out, you did need multiplayer to get the best possible ending. But I'll reluctantly admit that I even liked it, so I ended up playing much more than what was needed, and even went back to play it later.
I'd say that the game was about the characters first and the main mission was just the backdrop. So it's only fitting that your choices affect them. And yes the choices for roles at the end were obvious to anyone who paid attention to the story. But I'd think we'd both be shocked to see how many people got it wrong still. I take it as a nod from the game acknowledging our investment in the characters.
Also the main mission of the game was to defeat the collectors. So I don't see what other outcome would've been possible than defeating them? And there was the choice of blowing up the base or keeping it for studying. Which also had no effect on the main events in me3, but at least affect some side mission. Even through the "good" choice there was destroying the base according to the story. I always kept it. Because it's better to understand the enemy technology than to try to sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away.
Anyhow the only choice they choose to ignore that actually bothered me was the rachni. That reallly felt shoehorned in. And made you feel that even so big impact choices of your were reversed and made irrelevant. They could've easily made that choice matter, but they didn't and that's all on ME3, not 2.